The reusable mini-spaceplane is back from the dead—again—and prepping for space.

One clear, sunny day this past May, the residents of Broomfield, Colorado spotted what was, for most of them, an unidentified flying object.

Surrounded by excited, shouting workers in American blue jeans and orange coveralls, an Erickson Aircrane helicopter hoisted the UFO up off its perch of rectangular white styrofoam and carried it in circles around the local airstrip. The workers took notes and pictures, the local news took even more pictures, and the resulting images went viral. That day, the world met Dream Chaser, the small spacecraft that Sierra Nevada Corporation hopes will become NASA's future ride to the International Space Station.

Dream Chaser recently completed its first milestone in the third round of NASA's Commercial Crew development program, CCiCap, and it's set to be dropped from a helicopter for first landing tests some time later this year. It's the only spaceplane on NASA's short list of CCiCap partners; the other two are Apollo-like capsules designed to plummet back to Earth. For those who love it, Dream Chaser inspires enthusiasm because it reminds them of a Space Shuttle, and because it can do things that a capsule can't.

But while the craft itself is new, Dream Chaser's history goes much further back than that spotting over Broomfield. The Dream Chaser is a Cold War product, replete with secret military programs, spy planes, rocket scientists, Russian trawlers, and Air Force test pilots working in the middle of the desert. Fifty years later, this descendant of a secret Soviet spaceplane might finally see its way into orbit.

Distant branches of a family tree

NASA's M2-F1 with Chuck Yeager in the cockpit at Dryden

Photo Credit: NASA

The American branches of the Dream Chaser family tree begin with Dale Reed, a man who loved anything that flew. Reed spent the 1960s doing experiments at what became known as NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center. The small research station was based at Edwards Air Force Base and located by Rogers Dry Lake, smack in the hot, parched middle of Southern California. As a fresh young aeronautical engineer in 1953, Reed by his own account "drove south from Idaho and west across the Nevada desert to the town of Mojave, California, where I made a sharp southeastern turn into the middle of nowhere."

Two years before, NASA Ames researchers had made an important discovery: a blunt-nosed airplane didn't get hot the way a pointy-nosed one did when it reached supersonic speeds, because a pressure wave held the hot air away from the nose. A blunt-nosed spacecraft was therefore more likely to survive atmospheric re-entry.

It was a breakthrough, but an unsatisfying one for an airplane lover, because the blunt capsule shapes Ames researchers began testing didn't fly very well. They fell through the atmosphere and decelerated at about eight times Earth's gravity, a crushing ride for whoever would be inside. Dale Reed decided that a flying spacecraft was a better option, one with the ability to reenter gently and fly to a specific destination.

Reed didn't favor wings, however. Wings are a problem for re-entry vehicles; they burn up easily and they must be strong enough to withstand the force of reentering the atmosphere at over 20,000 miles per hour while somehow not becoming too large a portion of the spacecraft's weight. But Ames had discovered other shapes that would fly, shapes that more closely resembled bathtubs than airplanes.

Reed read the research papers and began to build models of wingless aircraft, crafted out of paper and balsa, and his fellow engineers gathered to watch them fly up and down the Dryden hallways. Eventually, he convinced his superiors to grant him the small team of people and budget necessary to build full-sized aircraft. The group didn't actually have any money for aircraft research; they only had money for building maintenance. So Reed's boss took their initial budget out of that, and arranged collaboration and political cover from Ames, several hours away at Moffett Field.

Reed's group of friends and colleagues slowly proved that by shaping a spacecraft's body to provide lift, and by giving it a blunt nose, they could enable astronauts to fly back from space rather than just falling down from it. The team built and flew many lifting bodies, changing them on the fly as they had new ideas. They crafted each using wood and metal and whatever knowledge they had picked up from the last one, turning out "flying bathtubs and flatirons" on a relatively quick basis. The first lifting body aircraft was built in roughly three months for a little over $200,000 in 2010 dollars.

Some of the test pilots who flew these vehicles, often engineers or physicists, went on to become famous—men like Chuck Yeager, who broke the sound barrier, and Dick Scobee, pilot of the last Challenger mission. In some cases, the aircraft became famous, too. The M2-F2 went on to star in the opening credits of "The Six Million Dollar Man," and a model of the X-24A became a well-used movie prop. Lifting body technology became part of the Space Shuttle and the X-33 spaceplane.

Lifting body research also became a useful way to figure out what the Soviets were doing.

Back in the USSR

Russian trawler trying to obscure the BOR-4 with orange smoke during retrieval.

The Russian side of the family tree is where surveillance and a "borrowed" design make an entrance. Western powers were the spies in this episode; they lifted the shape of a Russian spaceplane and gave it a new home in NASA Langley's paper-strewn offices and wind tunnels, changing its name several times along the way.

On June 4, 1982, the Soviet Union launched a small spaceplane called the BOR-4 from Kapustin Yar missile test range in Astrakhan Oblast, Russia. BOR-4 wasn't a real spacecraft; it was meant to test the thermal protection tiles of the Soviet space shuttle, Buran. It flew over Russia and came down again in light seas near the Cocos Islands in the Indian Ocean. A thin layer of clouds covered the sky, but the light remained bright and the Soviets found the craft quickly with a large trawler. They sent a boatload of men to attach a harness and pull it out of the water.

Naturally, when the Soviet Union launched something from a missile test range, other countries became strongly interested. A Royal Australian Air Force P-3 Orion reconnaissance aircraft flew over the BOR-4 splashdown site and took photos of the strangely shaped object. It had tall, inflatable orange cones sticking out of its nose and tail, making it easy to spot in rough seas. It had a scow-shaped nose and small, highly slanted wings.

The Australians weren't sure what to make of it, but they weren't at all shy about buzzing the trawler to take better photos (you can see just how close the Australians came in the video below). The Soviets set off smoke bombs near the spacecraft to prevent the P-3 from getting anything useful, but the wind blew up and the smoke failed to cover much. At the same time, a happy Soviet soldier was getting great video of the Orion P-3. Australian Defense Intelligence immediately sent their pictures to the CIA, while the Soviet soldier turned his film over to his superiors.

All I wanted to say is that I absolutely loved this article. I knew some of the history behind the Dream Chaser's design but still enjoyed reading about it all over again, not to mention all the info I didn't know about. Here's to hoping for continued success with the program!

What? That video mentions the word "NASA" just twice. Doesn't discuss NASA's capabilities at all....Not sure that you actually replied to what I wrote.

What's the intent of NASA? Who sold the patents to private companies in order to get them into LEO in the first place? Is NASA's intent to make an industry of LEO, or space exploration? I would think if it was NASA's intent to commercialize LEO, then they would be able to do so immediately. They already know how.

Your comment, in my opinion, demeans the decades of hard work NASA did to even make it possible. It just doesn't even apply to what the organization is about.

Neil deGrasse Tyson was explaining that maligning NASA as incompetent, inefficient or any other asinine term was to completely miss the point of government research & development. Such comments display a dearth of economic comprehension & an obliviousness to science and associated exploration. They display an inability to understand the value of NASA et al have consistently done. These comments show a gullibility equal to any scam victim victimized twice by the same scam.

NASA is only intended to discover what is out there. It isn't intended to make it cost effective or easily accessible. Considering what NASA is supposed to be doing, what they have done in a steadily adverse situation is nothing short of astounding. I'd like to see any commercial company that has the capabilities and innovation that NASA has. I'll buy their shares.

I think that the stunning achievement with Curiosity showed that NASA more than has the capability to knock this puppy into orbit. What it doesn't have, because of the whims of it's political masters and purseholders, is the cash, which is sad.

What? That video mentions the word "NASA" just twice. Doesn't discuss NASA's capabilities at all....Not sure that you actually replied to what I wrote.

What's the intent of NASA? Who sold the patents to private companies in order to get them into LEO in the first place? Is NASA's intent to make an industry of LEO, or space exploration? I would think if it was NASA's intent to commercialize LEO, then they would be able to do so immediately. They already know how.

Your comment, in my opinion, demeans the decades of hard work NASA did to even make it possible. It just doesn't even apply to what the organization is about.

*edit spelling

Yet the fact remains: NASA no longer has the manned space flight capability it once did.If you somehow manage to see that as demeaning that's your problem, sorry. I'm only stating a fact, not an opinion.

gimfred wrote:

SgtCupCake's post did reply to your aspersions.

Neil deGrasse Tyson was explaining that maligning NASA as incompetent, inefficient or any other asinine term was to completely miss the point of government research & development. Such comments display a dearth of economic comprehension & an obliviousness to science and associated exploration. They display an inability to understand the value of NASA et al have consistently done. These comments show a gullibility equal to any scam victim victimized twice by the same scam.

NASA is only intended to discover what is out there. It isn't intended to make it cost effective or easily accessible. Considering what NASA is supposed to be doing, what they have done in a steadily adverse situation is nothing short of astounding. I'd like to see any commercial company that has the capabilities and innovation that NASA has. I'll buy their shares.

Tyson wasn't talking about NASA (he only mentions them twice). He certainly didn't discuss their competence or efficiency. (Nor did I, BTW)

I think that the stunning achievement with Curiosity showed that NASA more than has the capability to knock this puppy into orbit. What it doesn't have, because of the whims of it's political masters and purseholders, is the cash, which is sad.

I guess you probably missed "manned" in my first post.

Not sure why people are getting so wound up about what I thought was fairly innocuous comment - there's no denying NASA no longer has the manned capabilities it once did, and there's no current evidence to suggest it will again in the future.

Neil deGrasse Tyson was explaining that maligning NASA as incompetent, inefficient or any other asinine term was to completely miss the point of government research & development. Such comments display a dearth of economic comprehension & an obliviousness to science and associated exploration. They display an inability to understand the value of NASA et al have consistently done. These comments show a gullibility equal to any scam victim victimized twice by the same scam.

NASA is only intended to discover what is out there. It isn't intended to make it cost effective or easily accessible. Considering what NASA is supposed to be doing, what they have done in a steadily adverse situation is nothing short of astounding. I'd like to see any commercial company that has the capabilities and innovation that NASA has. I'll buy their shares.

Tyson wasn't talking about NASA (he only mentions them twice). He certainly didn't discuss their competence or efficiency. (Nor did I, BTW) <snip>

He didn't need to mention them. It was inherent to the concept he was defending, of which NASA's function is a subset. I didn't claim he did discuss their efficiency; it was the maligning, such in your snide post, which was the important aspect. I brought up incompetent & inefficient as a catch-all to describe the common aspersions cast NASA's way. I acknowledge I left myself open there; however there was the phrase 'any other asinine term' to cover that. I shouldn't have expected the reader to comprehend the text.

Yet the fact remains: NASA no longer has the manned space flight capability it once did..

Hard to do when the politicians of both sides are too busy slashing your budget to spend it on some pork barrel in their state, to fund horribly managed projects that should have been cancelled ages ago like the F-35, Littoral Combat Ship or to save failing banks.

Yet the fact remains: NASA no longer has the manned space flight capability it once did.If you somehow manage to see that as demeaning that's your problem, sorry. I'm only stating a fact, not an opinion.

You are completely missing the point. It acknowledges neither the past nor the future of NASA and its goals. Your statement of "fact" only applies to the operational capacity of NASA, and not its technological capacity. If NASA wanted to be KING of LEO and ship people into space, then it would. While NASA is out visiting Mars and probing the outer solar system, private enterprise is struggling to figure out how to ship people and goods to space for a profit. If you think about it even further, the only reason why these private organizations exist in the first place is because of government funding!(which probably come directly out of NASA's budget..)

Quote:

Tyson wasn't talking about NASA (he only mentions them twice).

I usually hold myself back before implying ignorance, but you do realize he currently sits on NASA's advisory council and was awarded one of their highest honors. You can pretty much consider him a regular and a semi-voice for NASA(considering his numerous public appearances).http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/tysonLetter.html (mentions it here, letter is good read)

Quote:

He certainly didn't discuss their competence or efficiency.

I think Neil adequately spoke for NASA's technological competency and ability. Does he really need to point out all the manned missions NASA has done in space? Again, does asking about the efficiency of NASA make sense?

Quote:

I guess you probably missed "manned" in my first post.

Not sure why people are getting so wound up about what I thought was fairly innocuous comment - there's no denying NASA no longer has the manned capabilities it once did, and there's no current evidence to suggest it will again in the future.

Why would NASA care(besides their poor budget?) The comment begs the question.

Yet the fact remains: NASA no longer has the manned space flight capability it once did.

To what end? Been to the moon. And Mars pretty much is a one way and a lot of money just to pull a "Kilroy was here".

No idea. That's not my point. My point has simply been that they no longer have those capabilities.

gimfred wrote:

visbis444 wrote:

Tyson wasn't talking about NASA (he only mentions them twice). He certainly didn't discuss their competence or efficiency. (Nor did I, BTW) <snip>

He didn't need to mention them. It was inherent to the concept he was defending, of which NASA's function is a subset. I didn't claim he did discuss their efficiency; it was the maligning, such in your snide post, which was the important aspect. I brought up incompetent & inefficient as a catch-all to describe the common aspersions cast NASA's way. I acknowledge I left myself open there; however there was the phrase 'any other asinine term' to cover that. I shouldn't have expected the reader to comprehend the text.

If you can't see why inefficiency or incompetent would be raised in reference to that statement... I honestly don't know how to help you.

Again, I made no reference to inefficiency or incompetence. They are entirely a product of your own posts.My point (as I've now said repeatedly) is that NASA no longer has those capabilities. This is undeniable.

sheogorath wrote:

visbis444 wrote:

Yet the fact remains: NASA no longer has the manned space flight capability it once did..

Hard to do when the politicians of both sides are too busy slashing your budget to spend it on some pork barrel in their state, to fund horribly managed projects that should have been cancelled ages ago like the F-35, Littoral Combat Ship or to save failing banks.

Not just hard, impossible.

SgtCupCake wrote:

You are completely missing the point. It acknowledges neither the past nor the future of NASA and its goals. Your statement of "fact" only applies to the operational capacity of NASA, and not its technological capacity.

I'm talking about total combined capability. A deficit in "operational capability" means a deficit in "total combined capability". They no longer have past manned capabilities.

Quote:

If NASA wanted to be KING of LEO and ship people into space, then it would. While NASA is out visiting Mars and probing the outer solar system, private enterprise is struggling to figure out how to ship people and goods to space for a profit. If you think about it even further, the only reason why these private organizations exist in the first place is because of government funding!(which probably come directly out of NASA's budget..)

Yes, if it wanted, and if it had the funding. But it doesn't have the funding. And so it now doesn't have the manned capability it once did.

Quote:

Quote:

Tyson wasn't talking about NASA (he only mentions them twice).

I struggle to hold myself back when before calling someone ignorant, but you do realize he currently sits on NASA's advisory council and was awarded one of their highest honors. You can pretty much consider him a regular and a semi-voice for NASA(considering his numerous public appearances).http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/ ... l(mentions it here, letter is good read)

Good grief. Are you now implying I somehow maligned Tyson? Don't be absurd.

Quote:

Quote:

He certainly didn't discuss their competence or efficiency.

I think Neil adequately spoke for NASA's technological competency and ability. Does he really need to point out all the manned missions NASA has done in space? Again, does asking about the efficiency of NASA make sense?

No, he didn't. He may well have done in some other video, but not that one.And, again, I never mentioned NASA's efficiency. Someone else did.

Quote:

Quote:

I guess you probably missed "manned" in my first post.

Not sure why people are getting so wound up about what I thought was fairly innocuous comment - there's no denying NASA no longer has the manned capabilities it once did, and there's no current evidence to suggest it will again in the future.

Who cares? Why would NASA care? The comment "begs the question".

[/quote]Who/why isn't something I commented on.Everyone upset by me pointing out they no longer have their past manned capabilities apparently cares.

I think someone got called out and has now attempted to retreat to a 'known' fact.

You didn't say just they no longer have the ability of manned spaceflight. You said they weren't capable of maintaining it. That wording is being called into question as it implies NASA incompetently lost their capability. You also said [in light of their incapability] they couldn't increase it. The use of the phrase "let alone..." indicates your attempt at negative aspersions which is why everyone is jumping on your case.

Unfortunately numbskulls keep pulling their budget funding and others imply constantly that NASA has past its use-by date. I'm not even a USA citizen and I'm astounded by these people's temerity. A USA citizen should be lynching these moronic statements.

You didn't say just they no longer have the ability of manned spaceflight. You said they weren't capable of maintaining it. That wording is being called into question as it implies NASA incompetently lost their capability. You also said [in light of their incapability] they couldn't increase it. The use of the phrase "let alone..." indicates your attempt at negative aspersions which is why everyone is jumping on your case.

Don't try to pin "incompetence" on me. I never mentioned it nor implied it, it was brought up by others only.My point is only that NASA no longer has past manned capabilities.

As for the wording: - I shouldn't have said "maintain", because that capability has in fact already been lost. "Maintain" was much too generous from me. - "let alone" simply means increasing capability is harder than maintaining it. (e.g. "I can't lift 50kg, let alone 100kg")

A pity none of these (old) articles can be backed up by funding or hardware.

gimfred wrote:

Unfortunately numbskulls keep pulling their budget funding and others imply constantly that NASA has past its use-by date. I'm not even a USA citizen and I'm astounded by these people's temerity. A USA citizen should be lynching these moronic statements.

No argument with that assessment-- I'm very curious to see how this goes.

We can get into topics about total system mass and whatnot, but I think the real question that matters is how at risk each capsule is of being overweight, and how likely each is to make its development milestones and make it to the next stage in another 20 months.

That first picture (while awesome) looks like it was actually taken in Littleton Colorado, right outside of the Lockheed space and research center. Live right by it.

I don't think Broomfield reaches the foothills.

It doesn't. The lower backgound photo was taken just south of South Boulder. The pinkish coloured lab is University Centre for Atmospheric Research, at the headwaters of Table Mesa Drive. The upper background photo -- the part with the snow -- was photo-chopped from elsewhere. Probably still Colorado. RMNP perhaps. The Dream Chaser - Skycrane foreground was no doubt snapped near Broomfield, and pasted into the collage "for effect".

Very informative article, and player centric to boot, especially for me that haven't kept up with the lifting body designs.

It is easy to feel for SNC and Orbital both, the latter has been held back by NASA funding or planning problem from their selected launch site, the former had a better business case than the giant Boeing yet lost out.

I think their main problem was the hybrid engine. It was a poor choice compared to hypergolics for a competitive project. This article implies it was a strength in the selection, others IIRC say it was a detriment then or at least lately due to delays similar to the SS2 ones.

It is interesting that the DC thermal protection system involves ceramic tiles. Buran showed that russians, the great material engineers of yore, knew how to make these tiles stick 100 % to the vehicle body and withstand larger temperatures than the US types (at least 100 K more). It would have been a neat rounding if SNC had also picked up that part of russian technology with the HL-20 design, even if the heat loads probably are much less than the shuttle technologies had to withstand.

I read an article about the MIG 105 and its US counterparts that explained that while most of the lifted-body concepts were better as a reusable re-entry vehicle what ended up pushing it aside in favor of the shuttle design was the need for the Air Force of a larger payload vehicle, which was also one of the reasons the shuttle program became such a failure.

It's nice to see that some lifted-body projects carry on, more so after the russian Kliper project seem to have been halted since 2005.

We'll see how things go. As well-studied as Dream Chaser is, the whole cross-range capability was originally an Air Force requirement (I think?) and even with stubby wings it still has a mass penalty.

Cross range gives you a lot I believe, from deorbit planning to safety.

For the extended DC market of space tourism, it will definitely mean higher competitiveness besides the increased safety. Their passengers will experience more comfort and flexibility, and the turnaround will be faster and cheaper with airfield - airfield transport.

But it much depends on what airfields can accommodate the landing profile, from air space control to field length vs skids. And I can't find any details on that.

This is one of the best articles on Ars, thank you! More like this please And I think it's very honorable to recognize the Russian engineers like this. I wish they could all live to see this craft fly to space.